Written February 15, 2007     
 

Email Columns

writers on the loose - write your own columns
Write your own column!

LONSBERRY POLL
Should businesses ban licensed, concealed handguns?
Yes
No

© 2017 Bob Lonsberry

 
 
IS BANNING WEAPONS WISE?

receive columns by email
You’ve no doubt followed the sad story from Salt Lake this week of an 18-year-old Muslim immigrant who went on a shooting rampage inside a crowded mall.

He shot a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, two young sweethearts, a couple of businessmen and a woman who, after four years of marriage, was meeting her husband at the mall to buy the wedding rings they’d never been able to afford.

He murdered five people and put four more in intensive care.

It was a horrific, heartbreaking blood letting.

And as you know it was brought to an end by an off-duty cop out for an early Valentine’s dinner with his pregnant wife. He heard the gunshots and he ran to help, and between his bravery and the .45 caliber Kimber in his waistband, the rampage was over.

One man with a concealed handgun standing up for what was right.

Now, to those of us familiar with concealed carry in Utah, it was a little surprising that – among the almost 300 patrons in and around the mall – only one of them had a gun.

Utah is a state where people believe in and exercise the Second Amendment. Utah is a state where it’s not uncommon for several people in any group to be legally armed.

So why was that off-duty cop alone in fighting fire with fire? Why was he the only one who could engage the murderer with a weapon?

It’s because he was breaking mall rules.

See, at that mall, when you walk in any one of the entrances, you pass a sign that says: No Weapons. At that mall they have a policy against guns – even guns carried by legal permit holders. You’re welcome, but your firearm isn’t.

And in Utah people tend to obey the rules.

There’s no telling how many pistol permit holders were in that mall on Monday night. But if their actions are any indication, none of them were armed.

And the mall policy against guns is probably the reason why.

Which makes you wonder if things might have gone differently, if the mall allowed its patrons to exercise their legal and Constitutional right to arm and defend themselves.


- by Bob Lonsberry © 2007

   
        
   
 
    
Date Title Comments
Mar 27 THE RECENT REPUBLICAN FIASCO 0
Mar 25 DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS? 18
Mar 24 AN EMBARRASSING DAY TO BE A REPUBLICAN 20
Mar 18 IN FAIRNESS TO LOVELY ... 16
Mar 17 HOW LOVELY COST ROCHESTER $25 MILLION 14
Mar 16 WHAT I WOULD SAY TO CHUCK SCHUMER 7
Mar 3 THE STORY OF CHARLOTTE LAHR 31
Feb 26 ROCHESTER PD NEEDS TO MAN UP 27
Feb 23 ROCHESTER, A SANCTUARY CITY 16
Feb 7 ONE CROWDED MINUTE 14
Feb 4 IS THIS A CIVIL WAR? 29
Feb 3 TEXT OF MEMO ON ROCHESTER BLACK LIVES MATTER DAY 11
Jan 31 THE BOYISH SCOUTS OF AMERICA 0
Jan 23 ARE MOVIE SUBSIDIES POLITICAL PAYOLA? 8
Jan 14 JIM SHEPPARD FOR ROCHESTER 15
Jan 9 RUSSIA IS A DIVERSION 0
Dec 27 CARL PALADINO'S POLITICAL OBITUARY 5
Dec 19 MY STORY OF IRVING FELDMAN 45
Dec 14 SLIPS OF PAPER HIGHLIGHT HYPOCRISY 3
Dec 12 ON RUSSIA, PUTIN, OBAMA AND TRUMP 0
  Previous Titles »  


      
bottom left